The Environmental Information System (ENVIS) Centre at the Wildlife

Institute of India, set up in September 1997, is part of the ENVIS setup

of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. It
deals with general matters concerning wildlife and specifically those
related to protected areas. Its objectives are to:
* Establish a data bank on information related to wildlife and wildlife
protected areas, and thereby build up a repository and
dissemination centre for information on wildlife science;
* Promote national and international cooperation, and exchange of
wildlife related information;
* Provide decision makers at the apex level with information related
to conservation and development
Wildlife and Protected Areas
Project Leader
P.R. Sinha
Project Coordinator
V.B. Mathur
Project Co-coordinator
S.A. Hussain
Project Associate
A. David
Advisory Committee
P.K. Mathur
B.C. Choudhury
K. Sivakumar
Y.S. Verma
R. Thapa
K.K. Shrivastava
WILDLIFE INSTITUTE OF INDIA
Post Box # 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248001
Tel. : (0135) 2640111-115; Fax: (0135) 2640117
Email: envis@wii.gov.in; wii@envis.nic.in
Website : http://www.wii.gov.in/envis; http://www.wiienvis.nic.in
Wildlife and Protected Areas
Galliformes of India
The contents of the bulletin may be freely used for non-commercial
purposes with due acknowledgement.
Citation: Sathyakumar, S. and Sivakumar, K. (Eds.). 2007. Galliformes
of India. ENVIS Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas, Vol. 10 (1). Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehradun, India. 252.pp.
Citation for individual chapters: Ramesh, K. 2007. Tragopans, the horned
pheasants; their taxonomy, distribution and status. (IN) Sathyakumar, S.
and K. Sivakumar (Eds.). Galliformes of India. ENVIS Bulletin: Wildlife
and Protected Areas, Vol. 10 (1). Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun,
India. Pp 69-77.
ENVIS Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas, Vol. 10 (1). Printed in 2007
Credits:
Front Cover Photo Credit: World Pheasant Association, U.K.
Colour Illustrations of Species : Daniel Cole, Robin Budden, Norman
Arlott, Carl DSilva, Kim Franklin & David Mead from the Helm
Identification Guides Pheasants, Partridges & Grouse Including
buttonquails, sandgrouse and allies by Steve Madge and Phil McGowan
2002. Christopher Helm, A&C Black, Publishers, Ltd., London, U.K
Editorial Processing: Jyoti Prasad Nautiyal and Rajeev Thapa
Design & Layout: Jyoti Prasad Nautiyal
Maps: M. Veerappan
Envis Bulletin is also available on the internet at
WII website: http://www. wii.gov.in/envhome/eindex
Wildlife and Protected Areas
Galliformes of India
Editors
S. Sathyakumar
K. Sivakumar
Reviewers
Anwarrudin Choudhury
Dipankar Ghose
Rahul Kaul
Rajiv S. Kalsi
K. Ramesh
M.C. Sathyanarayana
191 |
Research and Monitoring
27.0 Techniques for Live Capture and
Radio-telemetry of Galliformes
K. Ramesh
1
and Rajiv S. Kalsi
2
1
Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248001, Uttarakhand
Email: ramesh@wii.gov.in
1
World Pheasant Association, 7/9, Shaftesbury Street, Fordingbridge, SP6 1JF, U.K
.
2
M.L.N. College, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, Email: rajivkalsi@yahoo.com
Introduction
Live captures of animals are required for a wide range of
purposes in wildlife research and conservation. Most
commonly, individuals are captured for application of
telemetry to quantify habitat use, survival, migration and
behaviour (White and Garrott 1990; Aebischer et al. 1993;
Powell et al. 2000; Javed et al. 2003; Cooke et al. 2004;
Kalsi and Rana 2004; Rana and Kalsi 2004; Kalsi 2005),
and for population estimation using capture-recapture
framework and other methods (Otis et al. 1978; Nichols
1992; Buckland et al. 2006). Capture is also necessary for
conservation breeding projects, transporting animals
between captive breeding centers, zoos and for release or
reintroduction into the wild habitats. Typically, live capture is
an arduous undertaking and more so in the wild, especially
of rare animals and that are elusive and shy. It is critical that
the capture induces only negligible risk to physical and
psychological states of the animals. Besides ethical and legal
consequences, any mortality or negative impact on the animal
would only make the capture redundant or weaken the
utility for which it was captured (Calvo and Furness 1992).
Therefore, successful capture essentially relates to
meticulous design, effective trap and professional execution
which include appropriate handling protocol. Simultaneously,
a basic understanding on the distribution, movement and
physiology of target individuals would likely enhance the
trapping opportunities and success. Through innovations
and experimentations, there are now several trapping
techniques available for different groups of birds and for
specific conditions (Bub 1991). Indigenous methods used
by forest dwelling people have also contributed to the design
and development of some of these techniques.
Use of telemetry doubtless scripted a revolutionary step in
wildlife research, for its ability to gather finer details of almost
every aspect of a species, overcoming methodological
constraints faced earlier. Human-wildlife conflict could be
better understood and suggestions towards scientific
management received greater credibility and acceptance.
Disease related investigations involve telemetry, as there is
a need for comparative knowledge of movement and activity
of infested and healthy animals (Houseknecht 1970).
Telemetry is often the only way of collecting quality data on
evasive species and those are difficult to be monitored by
visual encounter or through conspicuous tags or visible
markers (Kenward 2001). It is also remarkable in saving
human life particularly of dementia patients, helping memory
impaired people to track their way through (McShane et al.
1998) and in preventing vehicular accidents and unlawful
activities. However, application of telemetry in wildlife studies
is not without limitations and most often, the decision to use
this tool is driven by (a) the real necessity after considering
other options, (b) affordability of finance, people and time,
(c) ability to capture required number of target individuals,
and (d) more importantly, the efficiency of tagging and
subsequent monitoring (Kenward 2001). Since inception in
late 1950s, ecological investigations using telemetry are
numerous, but several are limited by low sample size (i.e.
inadequate tagged individuals), equipment failures and
negative effect on the tagged individuals.
Like many species, understanding the life history and
management of Galliformes demand specific information
related to population distribution, demography, behaviour
and genetics. Aside from opportunistic records, knowledge
of successful hunters and captive breeders, much of the
details on this group of birds are obtained from systematic
visual observations and indirect signs such as vocalization,
feathers, foraging signs, feces etc. Noninvasive tools such
as DNA extraction from feces and feathers (Kohn and Wayne
1997; Taberlet and Luikart 1999) and automated remote
cameras (King et al. 2001; Rollins and Carroll 2001; OBrien
et al. 2003; Winarni et al. 2005) have provided additional
opportunities to study these birds. However, because of
their ground dwelling habits with preference for dense
undergrowth and secretiveness, obtaining reliable data on
Galliformes proved challenging and significantly large
number of studies lack adequate observations or details.
Collecting some crucial data on social interactions, movement
and demography is almost impossible without monitoring
marked individuals. The obvious use of telemetry in
| 192 Galliformes of India
Envis Bulletin
Galliformes studies have been underscored in earlier
literatures (Hill and Robertson 1987; Conroy and Carroll
2001). In this paper, we aim to provide only an overview of
the capture and telemetry methods relevant for Galliformes
and for details; we recommend White and Garrott (1990),
Bub (1991), Boitani and Fuller (2000), and Kenward (2001).
We also present case studies of Galliformes involving
trapping and radio-telemetry in India, and discuss certain
general and specific issues envisioning useful insight for
future projects.
Trapping Methods
Trapping animal was arguably one of the earliest human
activity using specific tools. Of the several techniques adapted
over generations of game hunters and Galliformes biologists,
successful ones are continued to be exploited, along with
increasing sophistications in materials and methods. The
number of trap methods that were found efficient for some or
other species is exhaustive, but most of these are broadly of
(1) Cage or Box traps, (2) Funnel traps, (3) Nets, (4)
Nooses, and (5) Spot lighting (see, Bub 1991). Birds are
caught in these traps either by automated function that works
upon the physical contact of the birds, or by manually driving
the birds into the traps and also by way of physical capture.
Decoy birds and bait of food items (e.g. grains) are often
used to attract the target birds into traps. Though decoy is
readily effective especially for Partridges and Francolins,
trapping success using bait largely depends on the response
of birds. Therefore, in several cases, baiting for some period
prior to setting traps proved to lure the birds to baited locations,
thereby, increasing the chances of trap success. It is not
always possible to allocate time for pre-baiting or to locate
right locations, but there are ecologically relevant sites that
offer opportunities for trapping. Galliformes tend to use fixed
waterholes and roost sites, follow specific routes for foraging
and regularly choose certain areas for nesting. These places
could be easily identified by the frequency of their sightings
and by their characteristic territorial, courtship and pre-
roosting calls. Play-back of recorded calls (e.g. breeding
and territorial calls) would also attract the birds to traps. It is
apparent that live trapping is a specialized and skillful activity,
and that thorough field knowledge about the species and
their space use are prerequisites for achieving desired
success.
Cage or box traps are efficient for small sized birds (e.g.
Quails and Partridges), but return only fewer catches per
trap effort. Such traps are generally with automated trigger
system that closes the door after the bird entered the trap,
and are used with or without decoy or appropriate baits. In
funnel types, the traps are designed to have much wider
entrance and both sides (walls) become narrower towards
the other end in a funnel shape. Width of the dead-end
depends on the size class of target species and desired
number, and the birds are trapped at the end by snares or
nets designed for specific conditions. The trap is placed
such that birds walk into the trap on its own, or driven to the
trap or lured by baits and decoy birds. Funnel trap is among
the most efficient methods of trapping a variety of species
regardless of body size, and is particularly useful for most of
the Galliformes species. Among the net types, mist netting is
commonly used to capture passerine birds, but fall or drop
nets are better suited for larger birds such as Galliformes.
Camouflaged nets are placed in a strategic location with
ground support (e.g. pole) which is connected by a long
rope held by the trapper and once the birds reach below
the net, the trapper pulls the string forcing the net to fall on
the birds. There are also automated drop nets, wherein the
poles are pulled down automatically when the birds make
physical contact with the nets. In this case, the surface can
have a hidden pressure pad connected to a trip wire or
poles. Alternately, a portion of the net is spread on the ground,
leaving the rest half to be positioned in an angle supported
by poles. When the bird steps
on the ground net, the poles are
triggered, making the rest of the
net to fall down on the birds.
Capturing birds by snares
made up of series of nooses are
among the oldest trapping
practices. This type of noose
traps are known to yield
remarkable trapping success,
but potentially cause mild to fatal
injuries to the trapped birds.
However, a modified version of
the snare allowing for trapped
bird to reduce the associated risk
is found to be efficient for trapping
Galliformes species. Also termed Figure 1 : Fall Net
193 |
Research and Monitoring
as leg-hold snare, a series of nooses tied to a long sting at
90 angle is placed at strategic locations along the ground,
and the birds moving through this noose trap get caught by
their legs. There are also methods where capture is done
directly by hand or by spot lighting (or night lighting). Spot
lighting is one of the ancient methods and has been found to
be productive for many birds. In this method, high power
spot lights are directed at the birds sitting on the nest or roost
temporarily blind the birds, which are then caught effortlessly
by hand or by a net.
Handling Protocol
Once the capture is made, the birds have to be handled for
attaching bands or radio tags, recording morphometric data,
extracting genetic sample (e.g. blood), veterinary care,
transportation, etc. These require keeping the birds in hand
for a specific period of time depending on the nature of
purpose and equipments involved. Inappropriate handling
can cause physical and mental injury, and even lead to
shock related mortality. The immediate response of most
trapped birds is often the frantic struggle to escape. Unless
the bird is held properly, it is likely to experience injury and
shock. Experienced trappers immediately cover the birds
with dark cloth; so that it can not see the handler and people
around, making it to struggle less. While handling, it is
important to hold the bird firmly around the upper legs close
to the body, where the bones and muscles are stronger to
absorb sudden movement. In addition, the bird could be
held around the folded wings in case of large sized bird
such as pheasants. Conversely, holding the bird by one
leg, lower legs, head and neck must be avoided, as this
would increase the chances of injury (www.gct.org.uk/psg/
policy/livetrappingpheasants). Entire trapping exercise
should maintain a first-aid kit for treating any injuries to the
birds. If the trapped bird is gasping, it is likely that breathing
is restricted by excessive pressure on the body (e.g. wind
pipe or air sac). So, care must
be taken. It is also important to
avoid pressure on abdomen of
breeding female so that the
eggs in the oviduct are not
affected. While undertaking
trapping and handling the birds,
it is always advisable to involve
more than one person to be
able to follow the protocol
efficiently. Such help would be
particularly important while
dealing with large birds and also
recording body
measurements. The trapped
bird must always be released
back on the same spot where it
was trapped, unless the
requirements demanded otherwise.
Radio-Telemetry
The terms radio-telemetry and radio-tracking are
interchangeably used to refer to remote collection of data
through radio equipments (derived from Greek tele for
remote and metron for measure). The equipments comprise
of a transmitter (fitted as radio tag or radio collar) that emits
radio signal and receiver equipment along with an antenna
to collect signal from the transmitter. Currently, Very High
Frequency (VHF: 30-300 MHz)) and Ultra High Frequency
(UHF: above 300 MHz) transmitters are designed for specific
needs (Kenward 2001). However, the VHF tags are
commonly used on account of cost, frequency variation suited
for studying different species and battery life. After radio
collaring of target individuals, tracking could be done on foot
by hand-held antenna, vehicle mounted antenna and
through satellites. Radio tags are also mounted with GPS
(Global Positioning System) and Data Loggers which have
automated function to record various data such as
geographic coordinates of animal location, activity and body
temperature. Several types of radio tags exist for galliformes
species, which include Harness/Backpack, Dwyer
Backpack, Necklace, Tail Mount, Neck Band and Leg Band.
There are several standard companies. Satellite tracking is
increasingly utilized in several wildlife studies, specifically
for wide ranging large mammals and migratory waterfowls.
Among the Galliformes, satellite tracking is perhaps suited
for some Quail species that are known to migrate for very
long distances across several countries.
Radio-tracking makes the job easier for biologists to collect
data that are hard to get from conventional sampling methods.
The methods of monitoring radio tagged individuals vary
depending on the study questions and radio tracking
equipments. Data from radio tagged individuals are collected
Figure 2. Leg-hold Snare
| 194 Galliformes of India
Envis Bulletin
in three major ways; (1) Continuous Monitoring, (2)
Triangulation, and (3) Home-in. In continuous monitoring
method, tagged individuals are followed continuously, even
for 24 hours, and this would allow understanding of habitat
use and behaviour at large and local scales. This method
is, however, difficult to execute for Galliformes since these
birds are sensitive to human and tend to evade the observer.
Alternately, if the radio tag is fitted with a GPS or Data Loggers,
and monitored by an automated tracking protocol including
satellite tracking, continuous data collection is possible.
Triangulation method uses trigonometry as its foundation
and the radio signals obtained from three locations enable
locating the tagged individuals adequately. It is an efficient
method of data collection suited for wide range of animals
since the tagged animals could be located from far distance,
and observer effect does not occur. In home-in method, the
observer locates the animal directly following the radio signal.
Although this method is superior in terms of obtaining
information on micro habitat use and behaviour, the likelihood
of animal being disturbed by the observer is greater, unless
the observer stays within the zone of no influence. All of
these methods return location data (i.e. animal use), activity
and body temperature, and there are several analytical
tools available to discern these data for appropriate
interpretation (White and Garrott 1990; Aebischer et al. 1993;
Powell 2000).
Case Studies
In India, Galliformes studies involving telemetry are very
few. Iqubal et al. (2003) quantified home range, habitat use
and nesting of Swamp Francolin (Francolinus gularis) on
an agricultural landscape in northern India. Grey and Black
Francolins were studied in the Yamuna plains of Haryana
(Kalsi and Rana 2004; Rana and Kalsi 2004; Kalsi 2005).
Among the pheasants, Western Tragopan (Tragopan
melanocephalus) and Satyr Tragopan were studied using
telemetry, though with limited success (Khaling 1999; Ramesh
et al. 2001). The following provide the details of studies
involving trapping and telemetry of Galliformes in India.
Swamp Francolin
Iqubal et al (1995, 2003) studied home range size, habitat
use and nesting success of Swamp Francolin (Francolinus
gularis) on agricultural land in northern India. A total of 13
Francolins in adult plumage were trapped by driving them
into mist nets, erected at one end of sugarcane field. Driving
was done slowly along most of the length of the field and
rapidly towards the end so that the chances of flushed birds
getting trapped is high. Trapped birds were attached with
necklace transmitter, but one female bird was soon predated
upon, leaving the tagged birds to 12 (five males and seven
females). The periods of radio-collar attachment and data
collection varied from 2-4 months. The radio-locations were
determined by triangulation, with bearings from at least three
tracking locations. Given that transmitter range were typically
within 250m, the birds were routinely approached very
closely such that triangulation error was small and that each
location could be reliably assigned to a patch of habitat.
Minimum Convex Polygon method and compositional
analysis (Aebischer et al. 1993) were respectively used to
study the home range and habitat use of the species.
Breeding behaviour was monitored by following tagged
birds, and found that eight of the 12 radio-tagged birds took
part in breeding in six pairs. Home range of Swamp Francolin
was very small (male = 1,050 m
2
, and female = 822 m
2
),
and interestingly, the home range was positively related to
duration of radio tracking, possibly as a consequence of
birds moving further once nesting was completed. It is
remarkable that there are not many studies in India that had
so many radio tagged individuals of a single species for a
study. This study has not only provided insights on technical
issues related to capturing and radio tracking of Francolins,
but has also raised some interesting questions as a result of
inexplicable observations on the species.
Grey and Black Francolins
In the years 2002-03, Grey (Francolinus pondicerianus)
and Black francolins (Francolinus francolinus) were trapped
and radio-collared for studying their home ranges and habitat
use (Kalsi and Rana 2004; Rana and Kalsi 2004; Kalsi
2005). Francolins were trapped with leg-hold snares (Figure
2). Snares were set in previously identified locations at
foraging grounds where francolins were frequently sighted.
Observers closely monitored the snares from a distance
and trapped Francolins were removed immediately from
the snares to prevent injury. The Francolins were fitted with
backpack radio-transmitters weighing 5 gm each and were
released back in the same habitat where they were trapped.
Indigenously built radio-transmitters (Kalsi 2004) were used.
No bird was injured during trapping. However, on one
occasion, a mongoose got trapped in the snare and chocked
itself to death. A total of 12 Francolins were snared, of which
five Grey and six Black francolins were radio-collared. One
juvenile Grey francolin was not collared and was released
immediately.
The radio-tracking continued till the power supply of the
radio-transmitter was exhausted. Out of the 11 radio-collars
used, eight lasted for five months; two lasted seven months
while one was lost after eleven days of activation. It could
not be ascertained whether the radio-collar had failed or the
bird was removed afar from the study area by a predator.
For home-range estimation, point locations from radio-
tracking data were used. Home ranges were estimated
using, ArcView 3.1 extension package Animal Movement
195 |
Research and Monitoring
Analysis. Models were run using the Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) co-ordinate system and Minimum Convex
Polygon (MCP) method was used to estimate home-range
sizes. The home range polygons were overlaid on classified
habitat maps of the study area to study habitat use.
Western Tragopan
In 1999, radio tracking of Western Tragopan was attempted
in the Great Himalayan National Park, Himachal Pradesh,
to better understand movement pattern and habitat use of
the species. Six fall nets and nine leg-hold snares were
used to trap the birds. The fall net used in this study was a
combination of automatic fall net and walk-in trap described
by Bub (1991). Nets were considerably long ranging from
15 to 18m, 6m width and the mesh size was 40 x 40mm. All
the nets were coloured with black and dark-green stain to
give a camouflage effect. The nets were placed in such way
that 3m of the net was spread on the ground and the
remaining 3m at 50

angle supported by triggers which, in

this case, were bamboo sticks (Fig. 1). The net would fall
down upon release of trigger when disturbed by the bird
walking into the trap. Leg-hold snare had a series of 40 50
nooses fixed at 15cm interval in a thin and strong rope (Fig.
2). The noose was made up of nylon, measuring about 30
cm diametre, fixed with a bamboo or any other stick at the
base of the noose. The stick measuring 10 cm long and 2
cm girth was pressed into the soft soil, leaving only the
noose part on the ground sticking out at 90angle. One end
of the trap was tied with a nearby pole or shrub that holds
back the trap when trapped bird tried to pull away from the
trap; where as the other end was left loose. This set up
prevented the bird from breaking away from the trap, while
enabling the bird to move around without inflicting any sort
of damage to the leg.
One female Western Tragopan was trapped in the leg-hold
snare and was fitted with a necklace type radio transmitter
weighing about 50g, which had the potential life span of
minimum 12 months. Interestingly, the trapped bird did show
any agitation and could be handled without any problem
whatsoever. After attaching transmitter, it was released on
the same spot of capture. Home-in method to locate the bird
was discarded after three consecutive sampling days, as
the movement of the bird was found to be influenced by the
observer. Rest of the data collection was based on
triangulation method systematically recorded at three times
sampling (6 11 hrs, 10 15 hrs and 15 18 hrs) every
third day. The bird was radio-tracked for six months (from
May to November 1999) covering both summer and autumn
seasons, after which no signal was received possibly due
to transmitter failure or the radio tagged bird was taken
away by a predator. Locations were plotted on 1:50,000
scale topographic map and using these points, home range
was estimated based on Minimum Convex Polygon (MCP)
method in Animal Movement Extension (beta version) of
Arcview GIS software. Habitat use was studied by overlaying
radiolocations and home range polygons on the spatial layer
on vegetation, elevation, aspect and slope, and also by
quantifying habitat variables in concentric circular plots at
bird locations. Although trapping was attempted for three
months (April - June) with total trap efforts of 256 man-days
and 6694 trap hours, trap success of target species (Western
Tragopan) was very low with just one bird, possibly
attributed to low population density and secretiveness.
However, accidental capture of significant number of other
ground dwelling birds such as Koklass (n =1), Woodcock (n
= 4) and Hill Partridge (n = 4) indicates that the traps are
effective for Galliformes.
Discussion
Trapping of Galliformes is a very old practice, but largely for
game hunting, wild meat extraction and cultural requirements.
Although these activities are responsible for extinction risk to
several Galliformes (Keane et al. 2005), the knowledge
and skills required and gained over these have also
contributed to modern trapping techniques and to the science
and management of Galliformes. As the purpose shifted from
consumption to management, the real development and
efficacy of trapping methods revolved around the ability to
capture the birds alive, without inflicting any sort of damage.
Unless the methods are efficient and executed properly, live
trapping can be a futile and risky enterprise as experienced
by several research and conservation projects all over the
world. In other situations, even after successful trapping, the
birds could be killed by predators if left unattended for
prolonged period. Among the several methods evolved and
adapted for birds, leg hold snares and nets have been
commonly used for live trapping Galliformes. Besides the
case studies presented in this paper, leg hold snares have
been successfully used for Great Argus (Argusianus argus)
in Sumatra (Winarni 2002), Silver Pheasant (Lophura
nycthemera) in Cambodia (Samnang et al. 2005) and
reportedly of Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) in India. Modified
form of mist nets have also been used to capture Galliformes.
In a study of the mound nesting Megapodes (Megapodius
nicobariensis) in the Nicobar Islands of India, the birds were
caught by chasing into mist nets (Sivakumar 2000). Grey
Francolins (Francolinus pondicerianus) are illegally caught
by a variety of traps that use combination of nets and snares
along with baits and decoy birds (Priscilla and Jasmine
2002). Although the available options for traps and trapping
techniques are many, it is always desirable to clearly
understand the nature of the birds (e.g. size, habitat and
behavior), risk involved, and appropriate trapping protocol
before embarking on actual field exercise to capture the
birds. Such preplanning would not only be cost effective,
but would also increase the trap success. Similarly, use of
| 196 Galliformes of India
Envis Bulletin
telemetry in research and conservation projects should be
treaded with care as the telemetry is not always efficient due
to inherent factors such as battery life, signal range and
technical failures. Further, for species such as galliformes
that live under the canopy in dense bushes and in
mountainous terrain, radio signals are deflected or poorly
received. These confounding factors would directly lead to
unsystematic or discontinuous data collection, limiting the
strength of analysis and interpretation. However, with the
deployment of advanced tools and local adjustments in data
collection procedure, quality data could be obtained for
specified targets.
Depending upon the objectives, the trapped birds are
handled for marking or attaching tags, and taking blood and
feather samples. Since birds are very sensitive to any
extraneous factors, inappropriate handling can cause death
or defect normal behaviour. Studies involving marking or
tagging generally assume that marking or tags do not affect
the animal or that negative effects are irrelevant, but rarely
such assumptions have been adequately tested and remain
a contentious issue in wildlife studies. A critical review on the
effect of marking on animals by Murray and Fuller (2000)
highlights these issues and suggests measures for future
studies. On ethical considerations, in response to awareness
and concern for animals, captures are increasingly governed
by national legislations and international treaties, and there
are clear guidelines needed to be followed even for
publishing research papers (Anon 2001; 2002). It is,
therefore, necessary to adhere to these prescriptions in
order to prevent the risk of permission being denied or
discontinuation of further activity, which would potentially
jeopardize the objectives, efforts, investments and
publications. More than these regulatory protocols, field
research and conservation management are responsible
and service-oriented undertakings, and it is expected that
the personnel involved accomplish their objectives with
sensitivity to data quality and species population in both
scientific and ethical terms.
References
Aebischer N.J., Robertson P.A. and Kenward R.E., 1993.
Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio-
tracking data. Ecology, 74(5): 1313 1325.
Anon, 2001. Code of conduct for researchers contributing articles.
Oryx, 35(2): 99 -100.
Anon, 2002. Guidelines for treatment of animals in the behavioural
research and teaching. Animal Behaviour, 63: 195 - 199.
Boitani L. and Fuller T.K. (eds), 2000. Research techniques in
animal ecology: controversies and consequences. Columbia
University Press.
Bub H., 1991. Bird trapping and bird banding. Cornell University
Press, New York.
Buckland S.T., Summers R.W., Borchers D.L. and Thomas L.
2006. Point transect sampling with traps or lures. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 43: 377 -384.
Calvo B. and Furness R.W., 1992. A review of the use and the
effects of marks and devices on birds. Ringing and Migration,
13: 129-151
Conroy M.J. and Carroll J.P., 2001. Estimating abundance of
Galliformes: Tools and application. In: Woodburn M.,
McGowan P., Carroll J., Musavi A., and Zang D.Z. (eds.),
2001. Galliformes 2000: Proceedings of the 7
th
International
Galliformes Symposium. Kathmandu and Royal Chitwan
National Park, Nepal.
Cooke S.J., Hinch S.G., Wikelski M., Andrews R.D., Kuchel L.J.,
Wolcott T.G., and Butler P.J., 2004. Biotelemetry: a mechanistic
approach to ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19(6):
334 343.
Hill, D.A. and Robertson P.A., 1987. The role of radio-telemetry in
the study of galliformes. World Pheasant Association Journal,
12:81-92.
Houseknecht C.R., 1970. Biotelemetry as a technique in
disease ecology studies. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 6:
414 417.
Iqubal P., McGowan P.J.K. and Rahmani A.R., 1995. Afield project
to understand the habitat use of the Swamp francolin in northern
India. 49-53. In: Jenkins, D. (ed.). 1995. Ann. Rev. WPA
1994/95. World Pheasant Association, Reading, UK.
Iqubal P., McGowan P.J.K., Carroll J.P. and Rahmani A.R., 2003.
Home range size, habitat use and nesting success of Swamp
Francolin Francolinus gularis on agricultural land in northern
India. Bird Conservation International, 13: 127 138.
Javed S., Higuchi, H., Nagendran M. and Takekawa J.Y., 2003.
Satellite telemetry and wildlife studies in India: Advantages,
options and challenges. Current Science, 85(10): 1439
1443.
Kalsi, R.S. 2004. The successful use of radio-transmitters made in
India. 2004. Third International Galliformes Symposium
2004. April 5 10, 2004, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun,
and Corbett National Park, Uttaranchal, India.
Kalsi, R.S. 2005. Ecology of Grey and Black francolins with special
reference to the effect of pesticides and land use practices in
northern India. University Grants Commission, New Delhi,
India. 1-167.
Kalsi, R.S. and Rana, S. 2004. Habitat preferences of breeding
Grey francolins in agricultural landscape. Third International
Galliformes Symposium 2004. April 5 10, 2004, Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehra Dun, and Corbett National Park,
Uttaranchal, India.
Keane A., Brooke M. L. and McGowan P.J.K., 2005. Correlates of
extinction risk and hunting pressure in gamebirds
(Galliformes). Biological Conservation, 126: 216233.
Kenward R. E., 2001. A manual for wildlife radio tracking. Academic
Press.
Khaling, S. 1999. Certain aspects of ecology and behaviour of
Satyr Tragopan Tragopan satyra in Singhalila National Park,
Darjeeling, India. Ph.D. Thesis. North Bengal University.
197 |
Research and Monitoring
King D.I., DeGraaf R.M., Champlin P.J. and Champlin T.B., 2001.
A new method for wireless video monitoring of bird nests.
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29(1): 349 353.
Kohn M.H. and Wayne R.K., 1997. Facts from feces revisited.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12 (6): 223 227.
McShane R., Gedling K., Kenward B., Kenward R., Hopes T. And
Jacoby R., 1998. The feasibility of electronic tracking devices
in dementia: a telephone survey and case series. International
Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 13: 556 563.
Murray D.L. and Fuller M.R., 2000. A critical review of the effects
of marking on the biology of vertebrates. In: Boitani L. and
Fuller T.K. (eds). Research techniques in animal ecology:
controversies and consequences. Columbia University Press.
Pages 15-64.
Nichols J.D. 1992. Capture-recapture models. BioScience, 42 (2):
94 102.
OBrien T.G., Kinnaird M.F. and Wibisono H.T., 2003. Crouching
tigers, hidden prey: Sumatran tiger and prey populations in a
tropical forest landscape. Animal Conservation, 6: 131
139.
Otis D.L., Burnham K.P., White G.C., and Anderson D.R., 1978.
Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal
populations. Wildlife Monograph 62.
Powell L.A., Conroy M.J., Hines J.E., Nichols J.D. and Krementz
D.J., 2000. Simultaneous use of mark-recapture and
radiotelemetry to estimate survival, movement, and capture
rates. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 64 (1): 302- 313.
Powell R.A., 2000. Animal home ranges and territories and home
range estimators. In: Boitani L. and Fuller T.K. (eds).
Research techniques in animal ecology: controversies and
consequences. Columbia University Press. Pages 65 - 110.
Priscilla A.S. and Jasmine R., 2002. A note on the capturing
techniques used by villagers and domestication of Grey
Francolin Francolinus pondicerianus pondicerianus in
Southern Tamil Nadu. Proceedings of the National Symposium
on Galliformes, Division of Wildlife Biology, AVC College,
Mayiladuthurai. Pages 24 27.
Ramesh K., Sathyakumar S., and Rawat G.S., 2001. Radio tracking
of Western Tragopan (Tragopan melanocephalus) in Great
Himalayan National Park, India. Final Report, Wildlife Institute
of India and World Pheasant Association, U.K.
Rana, S. and Kalsi, R.S. 2004. Home ranges of Grey francolins
Francolinus pondicerianus during their breeding season in
northern India. Third International Galliformes Symposium
2004. April 5 10, 2004, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun,
and Corbett National Park, Uttaranchal, India.
Rollins D. and Carroll J.P., 2001. Impacts of predation on Northern
Bobwhite and Scaled Quail. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29 (1):
39 51.
Samnang C., Sary O., McGowan P. and Browne S., 2005.
Cambodian Galliformes conservation programme. Monthly
Report to Maurice Laing Rufford Foundation, by Forestry
Administration and World Pheasant Association
( www. r u f f o r d s ma l l g r a n t s . o r g / f i l e s /
Browne%20Report%20November%202005.pdf).
Sivakumar K., 2000. A study on the breeding biology of the Nicobar
Megapode Megapodius nicobariensis. Ph.D. Thesis,
Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.
Taberlet P. and Luikart G., 1999. Non-invasive genetic sampling
and individual identification. Biological Journal of the Linnean
Society, 68: 41 55.
White G.C. and Garrott R.A. 1990. Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking
data. Academic Press Inc, California, USA.
Winarni N.L., 2002. The abundance and distribution patterns of
Great Argus pheasant (Argusianus argus) in Bukit Barisan
Selatan National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. Unpublished MS
Thesis. D.B. Warnell School of Forest Resources. University
of Georgia, Athens.
Winarni N.L., Carroll J.P. and OBrien T.G., 2005. The application
of camera traps to the study of Galliformes in southern
Sumatra, Indonesia. In: Fuller R.A. and Browne S.J. (eds).
Galliformes 2004. Proceedings of the 3
rd
International
Symposium. World Pheasant Association, Fordingbridge, U.K.
Pages 110 121.